IN RE APPOINTMENTS DATED MARCH 30, 1998 OF HON. MATEO A.
"emphatically requested that the required list of final nominees be
VALENZUELA AND HON. PLACIDO B. VALLARTA AS JUDGES OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BRANCH 62, BAGO CITY AND OF
BRANCH 24, CABANATUAN CITY, RESPECTIVELY.
A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC | November 9, 1998 | Narvasa, CJ
Facts
 President appointed Hon. Mateo Valenzuela and Hon. Placido Vallarta as
judges of the RTC on March 30, 1997.
 JBC meeting called by the CJ to discuss the question raised by some sectors
about the constitutionality of the appointments specifically in light of the
forthcoming presidential elections
o Sec 15, Art VII – ban against appointments two months immediately
before the next presidential elections and up until the end of his term
o Sec 4(1), Art VIII – any vacancy in the SC will be filled within 90 days
from occurrence
 Justice Regalado’s view: election ban had no application to appointments to
the CA
 April 6, 1998: Chief Justice received an official communication from the
Executive Secretary transmitting the appointments of 8 Associate Justices of
the Court of Appeals all of which had been duly signed on March 11, 1998 by
His Excellency the President.
 In view of the fact that all the appointments had been signed on March 11,
1998 — the day immediately before the commencement of the ban on
appointments imposed by Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution — which
impliedly but not less clearly indicated that the President's Office did not agree
with the hypothesis that appointments to the Judiciary were not covered by
said ban, the Chief Justice resolved to defer consideration of nominations for
the vacancy in the Supreme Court
o Vacancy in SC created by the retirement of Associate Justice
Ricardo J. Francisco
 May 4, 1998: Letter of the President to the CJ, addressed to the JBC,
requesting transmission of the “list of final nominees” for the vacancy no later
than May 6, 1998
o In view of the duty imposed by him to fill up the vacancy within 90
days from the date the vacancy occurred
 May 6, 1998: the Chief Justice sent his reply to the President.
o Stated that no sessions had been scheduled for the Council until
after the May elections for the reason that apparently the President's
Office did not share the view posited by the JBC that Section 15,
Article VII of the Constitution had no application to JBC-
recommended appointments
o giving rise to the "need to undertake further study of the matter,"
prescinding from "the desire to avoid any constitutional issue
regarding the appointment to the mentioned vacancy"
 However, it appeared that the Justice Secretary and the regular members of
the JBC had already taken action without awaiting the CJ’s response to the
President’s letter
o In a two page Resolution they drew attention to Section 4 (1), Article
VIII of the Constitution (omitting any mention of Section 15, Article
VII) as well as to the President's letter of May 4 in which he
submitted to him;" and pointing out that the "Council would be remiss
in its duties" should it fail to submit said nominations, closed with an
appeal that the Chief Justice convene the Council for the purpose
"on May 7, 1998, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon." This Resolution
they transmitted to the Chief Justice together with their letter, also
dated May 6, in which they emphasized that "we are pressed for
time" again drawing attention to Section 4 (1). Article VIII of the
Constitution (and again omitting any reference to Section 15, Article
VII). They ended their letter with the following intriguing paragraph:
 "Should the Chief Justice be not disposed to call for the
meeting aforesaid, the undersigned members constituting
the majority will be constrained to convene the Council for
the purpose of complying with its Constitutional mandate."
 May 7, 1998: CJ received a letter from the President where the President
expressed the view that "the election ban provision (Article VII, Sec. 15) . . .
applies only to executive appointments or appointments in the executive
branch of government," the whole article being "entitled 'EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT.
 May 8, 1998: JBC Meeting wherein they closed with a resolution that "the
constitutional provisions . . . (in question) be referred to the Supreme Court
En Banc for appropriate action, together with the request that the Supreme
Court consider that the ninety-day period stated in Section 4 (1), Article VIII
be suspended or interrupted in view of the peculiar circumstances”
 May 12, 1998: CJ received from Malacañang the appointment of Hon. Mateo
Valenzuela and Hon. Placido Vallarta as judges of the RTC
 This circumstance, and the referral of the constitutional question to the Court
in virtue of the Resolution of May 8, 1998 operate to raise a justiciable issue
before the Court.
 Judge Valenzuela took his Oath of Office as RTC Judge on May 14, 1998,
before Hon. Anastacio C. Rufon, Judge RTC
o At this time, the originals of the appointments of Valenzuela and
Vallarta were still in the office of the CJ
Issue: WN, during the period of the ban on appointments imposed by Section 15, Article
VII of the Constitution, the President is nonetheless required to fill vacancies in the
judiciary, in view of Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII  NO
Held
 During the period stated in Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution — "(t)wo
months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end
of his terms" — the President is neither required to make appointments to the
courts nor allowed to do so.
o Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII simply mean that the President
is required to fill vacancies in the courts within the time frames
provided therein unless prohibited by Section 15 of Article VII.
o It is noteworthy that the prohibition on appointments comes into
effect only once every six years.
 Intent of the Constitutional Commission:
o Original proposal of the present Constitution was a 11-member
Supreme Court. When Commissioner Lerum wanted to increase the
 number of Justices to 15, he also wished to ensure that the number
would not be reduced for any appreciable length of time (even only
temporarily), and to this end proposed that any vacancy “must be
filled within 2 months from the date that the vacancy occurs.”
o As it turned out, however, the Commission ultimately agreed on a 15-
members Court. Thus it was that the section fixing the composition
of the Supreme Court came to include a command to fill up any
vacancy therein within 90 days from its occurrence.
 The instruction that any "vacancy shall be filled within ninety days" (in the last
sentence of Section 4 (1) of Article VIII) contrasts with the prohibition in
Section 15, Article VII, which is couched in stronger negative language — that
"a President or Acting President shall not make appointments..”
 Court analyzed the provisions
o It appears that Section 15, Article VII is directed against two types of
appointments: (1) those made for buying votes and (2) those made
for partisan considerations.
o The first refers to those appointments made within the two months
preceding a Presidential election and are similar to those which are
declared election offenses in the Omnibus Election Code1
o The second type of appointments prohibited by Section 15, Article
VII consists of the so-called "midnight" appointments. In Aytona v.
Castillo, it was held that after the proclamation of Diosdado
Macapagal as duly elected President, President Carlos P. Garcia,
who was defeated in his bid for reelection, became no more than a
"caretaker" administrator whose duty was to "prepare for the orderly
transfer of authority to the incoming President."
 The Court recognized that there may well be appointments to important
positions which have to be made even after the proclamation of the new
President. Such appointments, so long as they are "few and so spaced as to
afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the
need for the appointment and the appointee's qualifications," can be made by
the outgoing President.
o Aytona v Castillo: after the proclamation of Diosdado Macapagal as
duly elected President, President Carlos P. Garcia, who was
defeated in his bid for reelection, became no more than a "caretaker"
administrator whose duty was to "prepare for the orderly transfer of
authority to the incoming President."
 Section 15, Article VII has a broader scope than the Aytona ruling. It may not
unreasonably be deemed to contemplate not only "midnight" appointments —
those made obviously for partisan reasons as shown by their number and the
time of their making — but also appointments presumed made for the purpose
of infuencing the outcome of the Presidential election.
1
SEC. 261. Prohibited Acts. — The following shall be guilty of an election
Offense:
(a) Vote-buying and vote-selling. — (1) Any person who gives, offers or promises money or anything of value,
gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private, or makes or offers to make an
expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association, corporation,
entity, or community in order to induce anyone or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate or
withhold his vote in the election, or to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate
in a convention or similar selection process of a political party.
xxx xxx xxx
 On the other hand, the exception in the same Section 15 of Article VII —
allowing appointments to be made during the period of the ban therein
provided — is much narrower than that recognized in Aytona. The exception
allows only the making of temporary appointments to executive positions
when continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public
safety. Obviously, the article greatly restricts the appointing power of the
President during the period of the ban
 Therefore, in case of conflict: the former should yield to the latter. The
prevention of vote-buying and similar evils outweighs the need for avoiding
delays in filling up of court vacancies or the disposition of some cases.
 Temporary vacancies can abide the period of the ban which, incidentally and
as earlier pointed out, comes to exist only once in every six years. Moreover,
those occurring in the lower courts can be filled temporarily by designation.
But prohibited appointments are long-lasting and permanent in their effects.
 To be sure, instances may be conceived of the imperative need for an
appointment, during the period of the ban, not only in the executive but also
in the Supreme Court. This may be the case should the membership of the
Court be so reduced that it will have no quorum, or should the voting on a
particularly important question requiring expeditious resolution be evenly
divided. Such a case, however, is covered by neither Section 15 of the Article
VII nor Sections 4 (1) and 9 of Article VIII.
 The appointments of Messrs. Valenzuela and Vallarta on March 30, 1998
(transmitted to the office of the Chief Justice on May 14, 1998) were
unquestionably made during the period of the ban. Consequently, they come
within the operation of the first prohibition relating to appointments which are
considered to be for the purpose of buying votes or influencing the election.
Dispositive: In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court Resolved to
DECLARED VOID the appointments signed by His Excellency the President under date
of March 30, 1998 of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta as Judges
of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Bago City and of Branch 24, Cabanatuan City,
respectively, and to order them, forthwith on being served with notice of this decision,
to forthwith CEASE AND DESIST from discharging the o􀁊ce of Judge of the Courts to
which they were respectively appointed on March 30, 1998. This, without prejudice to
their being considered anew by the Judicial and Bar Council for re-nomination to the
same positions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
(g) Appointment of new employees, creation of new position, promotion, or giving salary increases. — During
the period of forty-five days before a regular election and thirty days before a special election, (1) any head,
official or appointing officer of a government office, agency or instrumentality, whether national or local, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, who appoints or hires any new employee, whether provisional,
temporary, or casual, or creates and fills any new position, except upon prior authority of the Commission. The
Commission shall not grant the authority sought unless, it is satisfied that the position to be filled is essential to
the proper functioning of the office of agency concerned, and that the position shall not be filled in a manner that
may influence the election.